Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
Chris, this isn't any more dumb then some of these McCain articles that have been posted lately. At one time, the salary differences shown on this email were correct because the Demos were not offering anything other than completly eliminating the Bush tax cuts.
There is so much mis-information right now about how these tax reforms would affect our economy, it's almost comical. And both sides offer expert opinions that contradict each other. So it comes down to whom you believe. Unless you are an accountant, you are at the mercy of political hacks who can make the numbers say anything they want.
Yeah point those out to me and I will correct them as well. I really despise disinformation campaigns on both sides.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
WASHINGTON, Jun. 17, 2008 (AP Online delivered by Newstex) -- Make more than $250,000 a year? Watch out. Barack Obama wants to raise your income taxes. Social Security taxes, too.
Run a corporation? Lucky you. John McCain wants to cut your business taxes.
Those positions illustrate pieces of two vastly different approaches to the economy, an issue at the forefront of voters' minds given that the country is teetering on the brink of -- if not already in -- a recession as gas prices soar and layoffs rise amid a credit crisis and a housing slump.
Obama, the Democrat, seemingly has a traditional liberal outlook of taxing the rich more while having the government help people of more modest means through tax breaks. McCain, the Republican, advocates a classic conservative vision of cutting taxes -- many geared toward businesses -- to promote competition within a free-market system.
Neither plan is cheap.
The Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan joint project of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, gives a preliminary estimate that over the next decade, McCain's tax proposals would reduce federal revenues $3.7 trillion while Obama's cuts would amount to $2.7 trillion.
The center said the cuts would slice roughly 10 percent and 7 percent, respectively, of the federal revenues scheduled for collection under current law. But the center's estimate -- seemingly the first nonpartisan comprehensive comparison of the plans -- is incomplete because it doesn't account for health care tax proposals or, at least in McCain's case, consider how proposals to slash spending would offset some costs.
A crusader against wasteful spending, McCain asserts that he will veto bills that are too costly and cut the federal budget enough to make up for the costs of tax cuts and other proposals, although he has yet to show he can save enough to do it. At the same time, the Republican says that Congress must continue to fund an Iraq war that already has cost more than $500 billion.
Obama, in turn, has proposed billions of dollars in spending to create jobs and pad government programs aimed at helping the less fortunate. He has said that the money will come from ending the Iraq war, slicing tax breaks for corporations, and raising taxes on high-income earners, efforts he says are intended to shift more of the tax burden to wealthy Americans.
The two candidates have been haggling over the economy for more than a week now and seem to agree only on one point when it comes to it -- that they disagree on just about every other point.
"On tax policy, health care reform, trade, government spending, and a long list of other issues, we offer very different choices to the American people," McCain says at every turn.
Concurs Obama: "When it comes to the economy, John McCain and I have a fundamentally different vision of where to take the country."
Major changes to the tax code are at the heart of both candidates' sweeping economic plans, given that most cuts enacted since President Bush took office expire at the end of 2010 and the alternative minimum tax (AMT) is poised to hit much of the middle class -- two years into the next president's first term.
In 2001 and 2003 to jump-start a lackluster economy, Bush proposed and Congress passed a series of tax cuts -- including rate cuts for most taxpayers, increasing to $1,000 the per-child tax credit, relief from the so-called marriage penalty and estate tax cuts. The AMT was enacted in 1969 to make sure the wealthy paid at least some tax, but it now also threatens about 20 million additional taxpayers -- many in the middle class -- with levies averaging $2,000 if Congress doesn't annually renew a so-called patch to fix the problem.
Making permanent Bush's tax cuts and making sure the AMT keeps pace with inflation would have a direct cost of $3.6 trillion over the next 10 years, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation and Congressional Budget Office estimates, with government borrowing costs rising more than $800 million over the same period.
McCain, a four-term Arizona senator, twice voted against Bush's tax cuts, probably the significant domestic accomplishment of his presidency, but now embraces them and wants to permanently extend them for low-income and high-income people alike. He also long has said he would eliminate the AMT, and while some middle-income taxpayers would benefit, so would the wealthy, who no longer would have to pay it.
Obama, the first-term Illinois senator, wasn't in the Senate when they first passed, but he's willing to go along with permanently extending them except for their chief beneficiaries, the rich. Those who make more than $250,000 a year would see their taxes increase; Bush's tax cuts for them would be rolled back. Obama would extend and index the current AMT patch.
In the vein of taxing the rich more, Obama also supports making some higher wage-earners pay Social Security taxes on more of their income. He has called for higher payroll taxes on wage-earners making more than $250,000 annually, a step that would affect the wealthiest 3 percent of Americans.
The 6.2 percent payroll tax is now applied to all wages up to $102,000 a year, which covers the entire amount for most Americans. Under Obama's plan, the tax would not apply to wages between that amount and $250,000. But Obama has said all annual salaries above the quarter-million-dollar amount would be taxed under his plan.
Conversely, McCain has ruled out higher payroll taxes for now -- an adviser says that McCain would not consider an increase "under any imaginable circumstance" -- but the Republican has said he would consider "almost anything" as part of a compromise to save the senior citizens' program.
Both want to slice the estate tax, McCain more so than Obama.
The estate tax is phasing out and is completely eliminated for 2010, but it snaps back to 2001 levels -- a 55 percent top rate with the first $675,000 exempt -- at the end of that year. McCain wants a 15 percent rate, and a $5 million exemption, while Obama advocates a 45 percent rate and a $3.5 million exemption.
Overall, the Tax Policy Center said people with very high incomes would benefit the most under McCain's proposal, while low- and middle-income taxpayers would see larger tax breaks under Obama's plan and wealthy taxpayers would see their taxes increase.
Seeking to spur growth, McCain proposes cutting the maximum corporate income tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent, and he would allow businesses to immediately deduct the full cost of capital business equipment in one swoop, instead of gradually over several years.
McCain also wants to increase the $3,500 income-tax exemption for dependents by $500 each year beginning in 2010 until it reaches $7,000.
Among Obama's other proposals: raising the tax on capital gains and qualified dividends. However, Obama has raised the possibility of deferring some of his tax hikes on the wealthy given the ailing economy.
To help others, Obama has offered a series of tax breaks, including eliminating the income tax for senior citizens who make less than $50,000 a year and giving a $1,000 income tax credit for families with income of between $8,000 and $75,000; individuals would receive half that amount. Obama also proposes a universal mortgage credit that would allow people who don't itemize their taxes to be eligible for a 10 percent tax credit of their mortgage interest up to $800.
Haven't read it all, but this is the excerpt quoted by the blog I got it from:
Quote:
"In several important ways, the candidates’ speeches and web sites differ from the plans as we’ve outlined them above, and, in several cases, descriptions of proposals provided by campaign advisors strike us as implausible.
Senator McCain has said repeatedly that he would repeal the individual AMT, allow businesses to expense all investments in equipment immediately, double the deduction for dependents, and give individuals the option to pay tax under a simplified alternative tax system.
The campaign advisers say that the AMT will be patched but not eliminated except under the simplified alternative system, that only short-lived investments (for which expensing is not worth much) would qualify for immediate deduction, that the larger deduction for dependents would phase in slowly (and never equal twice the current-law deduction), and that the simplified alternative tax system would be revenue neutral.
The last assertion is particularly questionable: few taxpayers will choose to pay an alternative tax if it does not reduce their tax bill, so an optional alternative is only revenue neutral if almost nobody elects it, which is probably not what the candidate has in mind.
We estimated the cost of Senator McCain’s plan as described on the stump, assuming that all the provisions are fully effective immediately and that the optional alternative tax system is similar to the one proposed by the Republican Study Committee. Under those assumptions, the revenue loss attributable to the Senator’s plan increases to almost $7 trillion over the 10-year budget window.
Senator Obama’s proposal to exempt seniors with income below $50,000 from income tax but continue full taxation starting at $50,001 also strikes us as impractical and undesirable. Any actual legislation would have some kind of phaseout to avoid a “cliff” at $50,000.
Also, Senator Obama has spoken often about subjecting high-income taxpayers to additional taxes to help shore up Social Security, although his campaign advisers insist that there is no specific proposal.
We estimated the cost of Senator Obama’s proposals assuming all of the provisions are fully effective immediately, that the seniors’ exemption would phase out over a $10,000 income range, and that the Social Security proposal would impose a 2 percent income tax surtax on adjusted gross incomes over $250,000 and a 2 percent payroll tax paid by employers on employees’ earnings above that threshold.
Under those assumptions, the Senator’s proposals would reduce revenues by $2.4 trillion over 10 years, or about $367 billion less than the proposals as described by his campaign advisers."
I don't give a damn what his tax policies are, I'm never voting for a gay Black separatist who kneels toward Mecca five times a day but refuses to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.
Please do not put any "My friend sent me this e-mail" without doing your due diligence and researching it first. 99% of those are fake and make the posters who put them up look very foolish.
I don't give a damn what his tax policies are, I'm never voting for a gay Black separatist who kneels toward Mecca five times a day but refuses to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.
That's either really funny or really stupid.
__________________
"Seachicken - it's what's for dinner" - me (until the 'Hawks sweep the Cards)
Check out Dephinger on our MySpace page.
As I remember, the Demos wanted to eliminate Bush's tax cuts period. There were no exceptions and I know Obama was one of the people pushing that concept.
Sorry LIAC. I just don't remember that way. When this comparison chart first came out some time ago, the Demos weren't refuting it from the standpoint of indidivual tax increases because it was correct.
You must REALLY wish you had never started this thread.
Why, because Chris tried to make an ass out of me by changing the title?
Nope and I'd start the same thread again. Parts of this email are very pertinent and some of it was pertinent just a short time ago before Obama changed his mind again.
Why, because Chris tried to make an ass out of me by changing the title?
Nope and I'd start the same thread again. Parts of this email are very pertinent and some of it was pertinent just a short time ago before Obama changed his mind again.
Stick to your guns even if you are firing blanks, huh?
That's the same sad logic on display by the folks who state that knowing then what they know now, they's STILL invade Iraq - but let's not have hte balls to pony up in the battle with my safety or that of my loved ones. Chickenhawks....
BTW, you made an ass out of yourself by posting an email you got from a douchebag friend of yours....
Stick to your guns even if you are firing blanks, huh?
That's the same sad logic on display by the folks who state that knowing then what they know now, they's STILL invade Iraq - but let's not have hte balls to pony up in the battle with my safety or that of my loved ones. Chickenhawks....
BTW, you made an ass out of yourself by posting an email you got from a douchebag friend of yours....
I can't believe what you and DWKB get away with and Joe gets banned. Unreal.
Please bother your pretty little mind by highlighting what is bannable about that post....
Read your last sentence. You are so used to using insults in your posts, you can't even recognize them any more.
Edit: The first rule for this forum:
Quote:
1) Be respectful of the other members. Racism, bigotry & sexism will not be tolerated. We do allow frank discussion with the other members, and like to have a laugh, but some things are not appropriate. Repeatedly flaming, insulting and attempting to cause fights with other members will not be allowed and can result in a ban. Please be respectful to the board, both to the members and moderators. We are all here to discuss and find the most up-to-date info on the Cards. If you have a problem with another board member, please PM a moderator about it.
Last edited by 40yearfan; July 26th, 2008 at 05:17 PM.
I didn't insult you. Anyone that spreads blatant disinformation is a douchebag, period. If that person coincidentally happens to be your friend, well, if the shoe fits....
Linear Mode
